This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by cpwill

Fairly well, all things considered. Would have been better off I suppose if State hadn't gotten as involved as it did. Good After Action Review point for next time.

Not really.....there was no end game to Libya by the West. Now the Country is the Wild Wild West. AQ has morphed into the Hydra. Ansar Al Shariah groups have Sprung up from Yemen to the Maghreb. They have increased in strength and more fighters. Weapons are all over the place. The TNC doesn't control Libya and all of it is spilling over into the surrounding Countries.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by cpwill

Why can't we simply do what we did in Libya, and start bombing the regime? We don't need to provide particularly complex or dangerous weapon systems to the rebels.

Rolling Syria back was the plan all along. And I agree, we don't need to, and shouldn't give the rebels weapons that they'll just turn around and use on us or the Israelis... or even in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Uhhh source????
And if your talkign about the Golan Heights that was rejected by the UN

So what should have he dont differently? I hear this so often but i never get an answer..

The source ? Just scuttlebutt in the military community.

What should have Obama done differently ? He should have never ran for President in 2008. Or at least after becoming POTUS and finding out that the job of POTUS was bigger than he was, he should have said, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by MMC

Not really.....there was no end game to Libya by the West. Now the Country is the Wild Wild West. AQ has morphed into the Hydra. Ansar Al Shariah groups have Sprung up from Yemen to the Maghreb. They have increased in strength and more fighters. Weapons are all over the place. The TNC doesn't control Libya and all of it is spilling over into the surrounding Countries.

Yup. There are no "good" options here, merely "less bad ones". Ghaddafi was going to wipe out an entire city of people, we were able to stop him at fairly low cost and without US casualties, taking out an opposition regime in the process. If we can take out Syria, we can remove a similarly brutal and bloody regime while our interests are served far more dramatically. Divesting Iran of a stable and solid Syrian ally, and removing her ability to use Hezbollah to freely project force into the region through that ally is a serious strategic boon for us.

Will some of the spin-off include groups that attack us in the future? Definitely. There is no "and then we all lived happily ever after" option in this pick-your-adventure book.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

They won't. They're just likely to be less effective at hindering them.

Because we're not in it to help al Nusra. We're in it to A) make good on the US guarantee that use of WMD against civilian populaces has consequences and B) reduce Iran.

Problem here is.....Assad isn't using WMD over his entire population. Moreover another major problem is.....Assad is getting the Blame for the 80k that has been killed. Which is an absolute Outright LIE and false information that is being given to the World. Especially since the Rebels are responsible for over 1/3rd of the Deaths inside Syria. That would make the SUNNI no better than the Shia and responsible for 90% of the problems in the M.E.

Shouldn't we then Make sure we keep our Promise to World. Keeping the Sunni Muslims from Starting WWIII? Shouldn't we make sure that the Sunni Muslims understand completely when they screw-up. That we are coming to put the smack down on them as well. Regardless of Alliances.

Which means when they start s**t.....there are consequences to their actions. Shouldn't the Sunni Muslims be taught this lesson forcibly so that they can not only understand.....but Comprehend where they stand in the Real Big Picture of things.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by cpwill

That is correct, but destroying the Assad regime is in our interests. There are no good options here, but there are less worse-ones; and it's legitimate for us to push to ensure that they are the ones that come to fruition.

It is not often that I agree with you but you are spot on. Many are already helping the rebels and our absence will not help our cause in the end. Assad's alliance with Iran makes him the worst choice for sure.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by MMC

Problem here is.....Assad isn't using WMD over his entire population. Moreover another major problem is.....Assad is getting the Blame for the 80k that has been killed. Which is an absolute Outright LIE and false information that is being given to the World. Especially since the Rebels are responsible for over 1/3rd of the Deaths inside Syria. That would make the SUNNI no better than the Shia and responsible for 90% of the problems in the M.E.

Shouldn't we then Make sure we keep our Promise to World. Keeping the Sunni Muslims from Starting WWIII? Shouldn't we make sure that the Sunni Muslims understand completely when they screw-up. That we are coming to put the smack down on them as well. Regardless of Alliances.

Which means when they start s**t.....there are consequences to their actions. Shouldn't the Sunni Muslims be taught this lesson forcibly so that they can not only understand.....but Comprehend where they stand in the Real Big Picture of things.

WTF are you talking about. Iran is a Shia country and they are the ones making a nuclear weapon. Sunnis are in the majority in Syria and so they are the natural leaders of any democratic govt.. Saudis are Sunnis too you know, should we put the smack down on them too?

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by MMC

Problem here is.....Assad isn't using WMD over his entire population

Naturally. Some of his entire population are his allies. But that is irrelevant - we didn't say "if you use WMD on a greater than or equal to X percentage of your populace, then that is a red line". We said "the use of chemical weapons is a red line". Apparently when we said that we meant:

Moreover another major problem is.....Assad is getting the Blame for the 80k that has been killed. Which is an absolute Outright LIE and false information that is being given to the World. Especially since the Rebels are responsible for over 1/3rd of the Deaths inside Syria. That would make the SUNNI no better than the Shia and responsible for 90% of the problems in the M.E.

You'll get no argument from me that the alNusra types are decent people, or that it's going to be anything shy of tribal warfare when they start achieving victory. The guy says he intends to eat the hearts of Alawites and I believe him.

Now, the only way (that I know of) to stop them from going overboard with that is for the US to be able to draw a credible red line stating "at this point in the human rights abuses, US forces will start attacking you, and we know where you are." But we just blew up our own credibility with regards to those kinds of threats.

Shouldn't we then Make sure we keep our Promise to World. Keeping the Sunni Muslims from Starting WWIII? Shouldn't we make sure that the Sunni Muslims understand completely when they screw-up. That we are coming to put the smack down on them as well. Regardless of Alliances.

Dude we're in the middle of WWIV right now, and looking to kick off WWV here in the next 10-15 years . Keep up.

Seriously, however, if you want Sunni groups to understand that the US is a credible threat for deterrence purposes, then we have to prove that we are so with regards to Assad.

Which means when they start s**t.....there are consequences to their actions. Shouldn't the Sunni Muslims be taught this lesson forcibly so that they can not only understand.....but Comprehend where they stand in the Real Big Picture of things.

Yup. And what do you think that they learn every day that goes by that we don't make good on our threat against Assad? They learn that the US is weak and its' warnings can be discounted.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by iguanaman

WTF are you talking about. Iran is a Shia country and they are the ones making a nuclear weapon. Sunnis are in the majority in Syria and so they are the natural leaders of any democratic govt.. Saudis are Sunnis too you know, should we put the smack down on them too?

There has yet to be any actual evidence that Iran is attempting to make a nuclear weapon.

Re: White House reassesses policy on arming Syria rebels

Originally Posted by cpwill

Naturally. Some of his entire population are his allies. But that is irrelevant - we didn't say "if you use WMD on a greater than or equal to X percentage of your populace, then that is a red line". We said "the use of chemical weapons is a red line". Apparently when we said that we meant:

You'll get no argument from me that the alNusra types are decent people, or that it's going to be anything shy of tribal warfare when they start achieving victory. The guy says he intends to eat the hearts of Alawites and I believe him.

Now, the only way (that I know of) to stop them from going overboard with that is for the US to be able to draw a credible red line stating "at this point in the human rights abuses, US forces will start attacking you, and we know where you are." But we just blew up our own credibility with regards to those kinds of threats.

Dude we're in the middle of WWIV right now, and looking to kick off WWV here in the next 10-15 years . Keep up.

Seriously, however, if you want Sunni groups to understand that the US is a credible threat for deterrence purposes, then we have to prove that we are so with regards to Assad.

Yup. And what do you think that they learn every day that goes by that we don't make good on our threat against Assad? They learn that the US is weak and its' warnings can be discounted.

In regards to the chemical weapons usage, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence of who is using chemical weapons.

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's chief said chemical weapons appear to have been used in Syria but that it was unclear who was responsible, highlighting the difficulties in investigating alleged war crimes in the country."

"And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."